{
  "id": 5023664,
  "name": "Frederick Cogswell v. Robert J. Hoguet et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cogswell v. Hoguet",
  "decision_date": "1891-06-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "645",
  "last_page": "646",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "40 Ill. App. 645"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "5 Johns. 129",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns.",
      "case_ids": [
        2131538
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/johns/5/0129-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ind. 338",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "case_ids": [
        1488985
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind/12/0338-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Pick. 236",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pick.",
      "case_ids": [
        2018922
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/31/0236-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 195,
    "char_count": 2559,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.535,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08,
      "percentile": 0.33366926025416926
    },
    "sha256": "e7ef2f83379b3ca081e72d7c018144e92776f13f82df563cdc4ca1b88c722d64",
    "simhash": "1:f7119e056fe3a213",
    "word_count": 455
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:04.940945+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frederick Cogswell v. Robert J. Hoguet et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Moran, P. J.\nThe ground on which this writ of error is prosecuted is that there was no evidence before the jury on which to find a verdict. The bill of exceptions recites that the plaintiff introduced the following testimony:\niMr. Brooks: Gentlemen of the jury, this is an action brought by the plaintiff in this case against the defendant for recovery for a bill of goods; I presented the bill to the defendant, and he admitted that he owed it.\nThe Court: That will do; what is the amount due?\nMr. Brooks: \u00a7753.65.\nThe Court: Gentlemen of the jury, that will be your verdict.\nWhich was all the evidence offered in said cause. Whereupon the jury rendered a verdict for \u00a7753.65, and the court entered judgment against the defendant for said amount.\u201d\nThe bill of exceptions further shows that defendant made a motion \u201c to vacate said judgment,\u201d but the court overruled the same and defendant excepted.\nIt is contended that Brooks was not sworn and therefore there was no evidence: It does not appear from the record\nthat he was not sworn, and the bill of exceptions which is defendant\u2019s pleading, calls his statement \u201c testimony. \u201d But if he was not sworn, counsel for plaintiff in error, who was present at the trial, was bound to call that fact to the attention of the court, and, the omission would no doubt have been at once remedied.\nThe record shows no objection to the witness\u2019 statement being made, and counsel let the case go to verdict and judgment before he interposed, and then by a motion in a form not calculated to raise the point. Indeed it does not appear that the objection was ever made till it appeared in the brief in this court. The objection comes too late. It would be too late in the trial court after verdict, where the fact was known to counsel before the case was given to the jury. Cady v. Norton, 14 Pick. 236; Slaughter v. Whitelock, 12 Ind. 338; Nesbitt v. Dallan, 7 Gill & J. 494; Lawrence v Houghton, 5 Johns. 129.\nThere is no available error, and the judgment must be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Moran, P. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Weigley, Bulkley & Gray, and George R. Grant, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Messrs. Remy & Mann, for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frederick Cogswell v. Robert J. Hoguet et al.\nPractice\u2014Verdict\u2014Evidence.\n1. A complaint that a witness in a given case was not sworn, can not be primarily made herein.\n2. Nor in the trial court after verdict, where the fact was known to counsel before the case was given to the jury.\n[Opinion filed June 2, 1891.]\nIn error to the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elliott Anthony, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Weigley, Bulkley & Gray, and George R. Grant, for plaintiff in error.\nMessrs. Remy & Mann, for defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0645-01",
  "first_page_order": 641,
  "last_page_order": 642
}